The discourse behind this movie is so strange to me because when I was watching the movie, hearing that the president was trying to be a dictator was enough for me to understand that a majority of the country wanted him dead. I thought that was more than enough motivation to understand the context of the war. Some people remain loyal to the president and some people don’t want American to become a dictatorship. Idk what else to say
Dicks wanting more power is in every comic book movie today. It still would've been dare I say it interesting to understand why he did what he did and why so many others followed him.
“Dude wants more power” is a comic book trope. We might as well replace him with Commander Cobra if the movie fails to even hint and the ideological framework and political conditions that made his ascension possible.
@@rygarnett if u wanna get technical yea I guess but the Florida alliance for example had the same goal as the western forces if I remember correctly cuz there was a line I believe where the president was telling them to stand down or something like that
Garland's mistake is that he misread the room. He doesn't understand, or refuse to do so, that there are large numbers of Americans - on either side of America's strange political spectrum - who don't care about the horrors of war if it can be visited on those they consider as "deserving it." Garland is putting up a picture to your average American at a time when the most probable response would either be, "The heck is that, bro?" (as in total misunderstanding of his message) or "hell yeah, that's what I'm talking about!."
That's exactly why he made it now. And that's not what it's about. A director doesn't have to bend to what people want or don't want or have to realize any of that. The best actually make their movies in spite of that
There are multiple perspectives presented in the film: people who horde resources and kill their neighbours, people who pretend nothing is happening and try to stay out of it, people who enthusiastically jump on the chance to be part of the action or act out their dark desires, people who are just trying to stay alive and some may find a little joy amongst chaos, and people who are horrified this is happening in their homeland, but try to carry on. Lee's existential crisis stemmed from the fact that her photos of the horrors of war didn't seem to have the impact she wanted --- preventing more war from happening. I don't think it would have helped by removing the film's setting even farther from America. We keep getting WWII movies every year, but fascism is still on the rise. When it boils down to it, the reasons why we got here truly don't matter. As soon as you dive into the reasons, there could be a rationale to "justify" war. Maybe not a reasonable or moral rationale, just A rationale. Perhaps the debate about this movie is the point. If we can't get over "how we got here" and want to quash the possibility and reject any reason for a Civil War, we are inevitably heading that way. Garland is the journalist; we should be asking questions.
Well put. People's reaction to the film, wanting to know about how it started so they can point fingers are someone, is exactly the problem Civil War is trying to illustrate. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a photographer, if you stop caring about the person next to you, that's the problem.
Sometimes war is just. If a president declares themselves dictator and refuses to leave office while attacking citizens, going to war with him is morally just and defending him is morally unjust. An action film set around civil war in the US pretending that war doesn’t have sides and the causes don’t matter is delusional centrist propaganda
Wanting to know how we got there isn't so we can point fingers at someone - it's about understanding the complexity of the situation and how to avoid it. As is, we remain with the snipers' view of the situation: someone's shooting at us, we're shooting at them. While the film is trying to warn against that very thing, it simultaneously falls into the same logic because it treats context as an irrelevant element. I do think it's an interesting discussion to have though, we seem to be coming at this from different angles. As for multiple perspectives - I wouldn't call those brief encounters actual perspectives, we know nothing about them except for their behavior in one isolated situation. The only true POVs we get are the 4 people in the car, and even they don't all feel like fully fleshed-out characters.
Well I think a big problem with a lot of those world war II movies is that they actually don't delvin to why fascism rises and that's the problem I had with this film I think they had a missed opportunity. It would have rooted the action in a larger context and made the film a lot more powerful.
Once i was in germany for a conference with social psychologists specialized in group conflict and political psychology. I (a Brazilian) was talking to an US citizen from that conference and was surprised of how much he believed that political instability was only something that underdeveloped countries could have. I took it almost as a political immaturity from him, and said something like "this could happen to the US too you know" and he denied completely. One year later the invasion of the capital happened and he even wrote me, saying that i was right. Just give the right conditions the right political forces opposing, the conflict of interest. It can happen anywhere.
It can happen, but it wouldn’t look like it does in other nations and would take longer. The Capitol wasn’t “invaded”; people were for the most part let in. But if you’re gonna call that an invasion, surely the “migrant crisis” is one too. Consider how polarized the nation was in the 1960s regarding foreign wars, civil rights, the President was liter assassinated, and yet no civil war. There is no way America turns to civil war simply over one President. They would just take him out. Multiple US presidents have been assassinated. Our only civil war (or two if you count the revolution) were about major grievances involving groups, where military force was involved, not centralized anger at one guy.
@@TrekBeatTK well, in other nations, conflicts are, often times, financed by international forces. Many of the countries we see on tv having political crisis were because foreign countries had economic interest in this particular country and financed some sort of invasion or internal coup. It was what happened in Chile and Brazil for example. So, yes, it would be different in the US. Im not saying the invasion of the capitol was civil war, i was talking about instability. What i was trying to argue, is that i was amazed of how much an US citizen believes that they are immune to serious political crisis, as if it was a problem of the poor countries.
Was he a random guy at the conference or was he one of the social psychologists? It's hard to believe someone that educated, especially in that subject, could be so naive.
@@azula3906he was a specialist on a big university of the USA! I understand it might be hard to believe, but there is a lot of prejudice underlying these assumptions. He was a great inteligent guy, but I believe it is very important for US citizens to believe that other countries have conflict because they are corrupt, poor, or evil. Its easier that way. As if stability was about competence, and global south countries are just incompetent somehow.
@mixgb I guess very powerful nations in any given era have a certain irrational narcissism about them. When I think about that, it makes your experience easier to believe.
This movies reminds of Night Crawler where the journalist have an almost perverse desire to photograph and document clearly provocative images such as death and violence. The older journalist are used to seeing death, and seem indifferent to seeing somebody die right before their eyes and have no desire to intervene. They have basically become a sentient camera or like they are document wild animals. In the beginning the younger journalist is the opposite and is clearly unprepared and greatly affected by such grisly scenes but towards the end we see this attribute in the younger journalist as well.
If your perspective was that the older journalists were unaffected by seeing all of that death, you might want to consider watching the movie again. And pay attention this time to Lee's eyes when she sees what she sees. It's all in the eyes.
Exactly and a whole movie about that is blah, play a game, same thing. Tired of violence, especially when it’s treated as a good time to get a picture.
Except Nightcrawler is a good movie that has the right tone for what it is doing. It has a compelling main character and good supporting cast. It has focus and wit. This movie has nothing going for it.
I think the point came across crystal clear and I will quote my Bosnian refugee rack mate from basic training in the 90’s: “Don’t ever think it can’t happen here. That’s what we thought and then our neighbors began killing each other.” Large countries break up into smaller countries all the time throughout history and there are global powers who would find us much easier to deal with if we were no longer united and are invested in making that happen. I hope everyone watches Welcome to Sarajevo after this movie because everything from this was taken from things that actually happen when countries break up. This movie was less an appeal to civility and more a 5 alarm wake up call.
You nailed it. It’s interesting that the main characters are reporters and photographers and that we see scenes often turned into photographs. I see the film like a photograph, a snapshot of civil conflict and atrocity. When you look at photograph, you don’t necessarily get all the context or background or explanation that everyone is crying about. Garland is addressing the division and the glib eagerness for conflict that so many seem to have by holding up a picture for us and asking “is this what you really want?”
You’d be surprised at how many people today think that a reset is needed (on either side of the Overton window)… they fantasize that it will just be a weekend at the beach and somehow we all just get back on with our lives. Whether it’s Seattle Portland for one side of the spectrum or the capital/ Charlottesville on the other… more people then the average person might think are very much thinking some akin to civil war is not only possible but probably should happen. This film is hoping to be a wake up cal to those people, and people that may unfortunately be enabling something that could become real.
I know there are some crazies out there who think we "need" a civil war, but my genuine hope is that it's a minority of people who slept through their history classes at school and don't understand the fallout and human cost of this.
@@ImpressionBlenddelusional. It’s so much closer than you think. You aren’t in The shoes of generations of pissed off and disenfranchised young men. People have no idea what’s coming. The shit storm we’ve created for ourselves.
@@steveg2277 it just feels that way - there's a lot of manufactured grievance being incited by grifters who make money and clout from it. most people are quite content with food in their bellies and a roof over their heads. some things do need to change, but violence will not achieve anything good.
@@tomas-qr2el Equally as delusional. “It just feels that way” lol some people. Just because I recognize the reality doesn’t mean I want it to come to fruition. Like you, I’d rather it not happen at all, but let’s not be naive and act like this isn’t a very real threat that we’re facing. All power is won through violence. (Overt or implied) How are people so unaware of this stuff? As long as there are men, there will be wars.
Call me naive but i really dont think you can have too many anti-war films, or depict how ease it is for modern day civility to disappear. I was a bit disappointed that there was no context for this film, but once I got past thst, it didn't bother, since in most circumstances when this sort of thing happens the average person is just stuck in the middle trying to keep them self and those they care about safe.
I think the lack of context was entirely the point, for the reasons you said. Like, I didn't need the context for why the two (or three, or four) sides were fighting, because the context wasn't the point of the film. You weren't meant to obsess over why they were fighting, because the "why" of it all doesn't really matter to the average person. It's like the two men trying to take out the shooter in the house said, right? They weren't getting orders from anyone. They were just trying to kill that guy before he killed them. They were just trying not to die.
I felt Civil Wars story arc is quite simular to Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness and in that sense it's more about the inner journey of Jessie (Cailee Spaeny).
I can’t decide if Garland isn’t being a bit disingenuous with his answer about the California-Texas Alliance. The message sounds correct at a surface listen but then he has only two states willing to put aside their political differences to overthrow a dictator. Maybe he feels more states would dilute the impact of having the cooperation of the two poster children for “opposing political views” (a general belief I’m not sure I agree with as I feel, despite the vitriol in discourse in our nation, we still have more in common than we are considering while arguing). Yet by saying only these two could put aside their issues for the good of the nation, what is he saying about the other forty-eight states? I can’t believe more wouldn’t stand for the unity of a country and so, by focusing on just the Big Two allying, it removes the credibility of his reasoning and takes me out of the story; an issue plenty of other things did in the movie.
This is a good point! I think you're right though, he wanted to two extremes coming together to illustrate this idea of coming together for a greater purpose.
CA-TX makes sense because they are the most economically powerful states and also have geographical advantages. A huge amount of our military's weapons are also manufactured in those states. They are really the only two states geographically situated to from an economic & military coalition strong enough to take on the federal government.
I’m get the economic reason for sure but that raises the question why is Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico not also in that camp. That they are explicitly in a different group says there is an idea logical split. And that isn’t explained as far as I can tell.
@@nonionbeezness The map shown is the state of the nation after the civil war has been going on (they never say for how long), and we are witnessing the end of it in the film. Wagner Moura tells us that Washington and Oregon are the "Portland Maoists" of the New People's Army. It ranges all the way to Minnesota by the end of the war. Possibly Chinese backed? Plemons's character hints that the Florida Alliance is Central American backed invasion, but we can't be sure if that is just his opinion. The president further claims that the FA was trying to take the Carolinas by force, but that could be propaganda. Both those sources of info are unreliable. The older NYT reporter states that The Western Forces are an alliance of convenience or necessity, and he thinks they will fight each other after DC falls. So, some of the states we see on the map might not willingly be in the factions shown. I highly doubt Wyoming or Utah would decide to turn Maoist.
I've lived 'context and background' for 73 years. Most people I know are either heterodox right or left, left but not Democrat, Right but not Republican, Independent or Libertarian, or Politically Homeless and afraid to talk about their feelings for fear of being canceled. I've never seen this country as fucked up as it is now. Basically I wouldn't trust either side for these reasons. But I don't want a Civil War.
Many argue that you experienced peak US as all the factors were suitable for the US to become what it did. Those conditions are not there anymore or have changed dramatically.
At 63 and a retired navy servicemember the game that is being played is of the UN and the extreme wealthiest doing. We did not have to take this path the USA will breakup and will be attacked at some point all it would take is a major earthquake with cat 5 storms with riot's like the 80's at the same time.Just thnk about taking away every cellphone today.
As far as anti war films go, Come and See and Stalingrad are two of the best. The concept of Civil War seems interesting, as it’s not something I’ve seen done before. So I’ll probably check it out, even if it isn’t that good.
@@ImpressionBlendCome and See executes the true horrors of war on a postgraduate/doctorate level. Civil War executes it on a special needs first grader level. In other words, the inspiration fell flat and was run over by a steam roller 100 times to further flatten it
I think showing the story through the neutral journalists perspective was exactly what made this movie good and special. It was interesting to see it through the perspective of three generations of journalists and their development during their journey.
Movie trivia game: The Jesse Plemons character in the movie, The guy wearing the red glasses, identify his character affiliation, A. KKK B. proud boys C. oath keepers D. christian nationalists E. american nazi party F. american communist party G. local freelance militia H. white supremacist I. cornbread mafia J. the posse K. project 2025 L. christofascist agenda M. seven mountain mandate
I think you can take white supremacist out. One of the persons he talks to has a semblance of latino (hence the "central? South?" aimed question.) But otherwise, it's not that important: He's a genocidal, cold blooded sociopath, relishing in that civil war. He's having a great time.
while I agree with almost all said here, I don't in the "we know war is terrible" statement, as a non-US seeing US culture from the outside, I don't think they really know war is awful, at least not as the "host country" of it, war has been an outside thing for the US, the perception focused in their military forces in other countries, and at personal level by proxy with family and friends going to war, but always as an "external" thing, one bombing in Perl Harbor, a site most didn't even know it existed before the bombing and 9/11 and their entire world view crumbled, I agree, it was a devastating moment, but at the end of the day it was just 2 buildings, nothing compared with the Blitz in WWII, nor military forces walking and shooting in the streets, no fear of drone strikes at any moment. The "dystopian future" of the movie is just a regular occurrence in many places and yet many US citizens toy with toxic and dangerous ideologies like Nazism and Communism/Socialism as it were sports teams, and taking political divisions to ridiculous extremes. Just the fact that 2 states working together seems ridiculous it on itself ridiculous to me from the outside. So yea, from the outside seems like US-citizens do not, appreciate how horrible war is, how privileged they are and how dangerously extremist both sides are now. And to me both sides seem very extremist and intolerant, both beyond absurd.
I loved it, while not perfect I was thoroughly entertained. When there is a dictator in the white house it makes sense that a bunch of culture war nonsense would be set aside to deal with a real threat. There is even a line in the movie about how when the president falls the factions will likely turn on each other.
this movie is more about the photographers than the war. it makes is ABUNDANTLY clear - so i don’t know why the discourse behind this movie is so focused on the geopolitics than the actual plot
"I have no idea why people would focus on the politics of a movie about a modern American civil war in a movie named Civil War" lmao. Also look up Garlands quotes about what he thinks the left and right divide really is, garland comes off as a centrist
In that case he should have used a real war and just put fictional characters in it. Then you wouldn't need to explain why the war happened because people would already have a good idea. The problem is he creates a completely fictional war and then gives no explanation for why it happened. That's annoying.
@@edwinv196 He used contradiction (California joining Texas) as a way to make clear that the reasons are completely arbitrary and dissipating the “why” to focus in the “what’s next?”.
agreed - it's about the photojournalist. and it's also a work of FICTION. made up. not some biblical prophecy about lame political division. why so serious?
One of my favourite anti-war films is War Horse. The portrayal of war as its own monster that takes on a life of its own, regardless of the reasons for the war or the underlying motivations of the warring parties was so effective. The portrayal of war from the horse's perspective as a horrific fight for survival heightened this. Incendies is another anti-war film that I thought was incredible. Again, the reasons and motivation for the war didn't matter (although they allude to the sectarian conflict in Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War was itself was extremely complex). Its focus on the portrayal of war as a grotesque Shakespearean tragedy that strips people of their humanity was the key message for me. I do hope Civil War conveys something similar and I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Wouldn't call it sarcastic. I think it was to drive the point home about how mundane all of the violence is to the main characters and the people who inhabit the world of the movie.
This movie was interesting because it was vague about what led up to the Cilvil War. It focused more on the humanity and how journalists would handle this intense situation in a 24 hour news cycle world.
5:00 Historically plausible as Texas and California already have aligned on 18 seperate occassions...when they both voted for the same candidate for president. 18 TIMES. Let that sink in.
I was disappointed in the film. Nothing felt less relevant to the times we find ourselves in. It didn’t feel like an anti-war film. What it felt like was a paintball tournament that had somehow gotten out of control. Or a knock-off zombie flick without the zombies. Just poorly written stock characters road tripping from scene to scene of gratuitous, mind-numbing violence, purposefully devoided of any meaningful context. Why are these people killing each-other? What is driving them to do this? Take away that dimension and what is left is little more than a voyueristic spectacle that trivializes its subjects at best and worse, leaves the underlying causes open for every hyper-polarized bad actor to insert their own warped values into. Remember Children of Men (2006)? THAT was a dystopian flick that felt like it had something to say about political polarization, creeping fascism, war, and xenophobia. That and the numbing effect it has on the human psych. And it did it SO much better, because it didn’t shy away from being topical. It felt both relevant to its own time but also predictive of our own and it was made in 2006, not 2024.
Children of men is a masterpiece, but its topic is different. Political polarization is not mentioned, it's a lot more about wealth, basic rascism, populism/fascism in finding a scapegoat, that desperation brings the worst out of everyone (the only "good" people die as well as the worst people). It's also a lot about the progression of the character that is apathic to empathic which brings him to his own demise (Initial scene: Doesn't care about people: Avoids the bomb. End: Saves someone: Dies) so self sacrifice for a greater good. This movie is anti-war but a lot less bleak, because we're basically seeing the end of that step of the civil war where everyone has already accepted this as the new reality. Some fight against it, some don't want to see it, some live through it, many die because of it. It's not for nothing that this is following the "road trip" of journalists: They are observers, some of them for the rush of it, some disillusioned, some out of habit, others because they want to share it. We follow them as observers. We can see what it brings from them. The main characters are not likeable. They all have massive flaws. They are just... People with an objective. That encounter people. In a massive mess. That witness suffering caused by society being divided and the rise of authoritarians.
Its weird to call this an anti-war movie. The movie shows the successful elimination of a stereotypical fascist via war ... thanks to the union of TX and CA. Somebody once said that every sci-fi spaceship battle is an attempt to recreate a WW2 dogfight (even though spaceships would never fly and fire like that). By extension, I'm thinking all war movies are an inadvertant attempt to recreate WW2 as well.
It's an incredibly important film in my view. I've heard him say that he's tired of the distrust in journalism and that's a big reason why he made the film. I would say that a lot of people, myself included, are tired of not being informed objectively about the world. It's come to that. The journalism he portrays in this film is what it's supposed to be. What it used to be. How we're given the news feeds into how we think about what happened. Maybe more modern day journalism should take a hint from Civil War. Great Review.
You didn’t get it then, its clearly meant to juxtapose the violence on screen and make you double take when the “good guys” are having a feel good war crime moment
Marianna, it’s like you were in my head! Wow, I literally agree with everything you said. This was a frustrating film because the elements were there, but it felt like they got cold feet and removed a lot of the context and development that was sorely needed.
Thank you. You encapsulated my issues with this movie. A release titled Civil War: The Year of a Divisive Election in a Polarized Political Climate (and Country). I heard an interview on Mayo and Kermod, and it frankly pissed me off. You rightly state that "you can't have it both ways." I would go further. I found it to be condescending to the audience.
Civil war was good at sending a message, but not much else. A24 has a habit of leaning so much into the artsiness or moral of a story that they forget to make a worthwhile plot that’s actually entertaining. This entire movie was a depressing road trip with quirky music and no plot progression.
I hate how everyone who defends the film thinks that those who didn't like it its because they want it "spelled out for them." Trust me WE GET IT. The problem is it is such a surface level exploration of these events/characters/themes. It tries to provide an objective and apolitical perspective on a fictionalized American civil war. That's frankly mind boggling.
It's sad that you're actually so goddamn pretentious that you genuinely believe that that's why people didn't like it. If anything, it shows that you're the stupid one because you're so full of yourself that you really believe that's why people have a problem with it.
Love your review Marianna! You completely nailed it and it’s good to see a few reviewers saying this. All the accolades Civil War is getting makes zero sense to me. The film felt very empty and I agree fully with you that it was a missed opportunity. It’s a bit sad that Garland has to constantly explain what he was trying to do in interviews rather than his film actually providing that to the audience upon viewing.
Thank you! I think the shocking nature of it can really be overwhelming and make the film feel more impactful than it actually is. But then you sit with it and you realize it actually didn't have anything deeper to it, which is sad.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This movie is about what that concept looks like in the context of a Civil War. This movie is a warning to both sides of a dystopian future to take a moment to reflect before things go to far. When you play a game of chicken (two cars racing toward each other) and neither side pulls up, you get a head on collision. Does not matter the merit of your side if it leads to a MAD ending. This is less perhaps of a movie with a narrative story, than a warning for a time traveler from the future with a message to both sides to work to me more civil, and avoid war, its not worth it, it is MAD..
Im going to be candid and say this: I HATE radical moderates. I understand the distasteful nature of politics and the desire to stay away from it, but I am SO tired of finger wagging from people who refuse to take a side in the face of blatant and obvious evil. I can give the movie credit for the desire to portray civil war as an inherently destructive and undesirable undertaking. We need this kind of messaging to rebuke people like Tim Pool and the Boog boys who pursue wreckless war mongering for seemingly no justifiable reason. However, this "people who cant see Texas and California getting along show a greater commitment to partisan politics than to opposition to fascism" is total B.S. The left isnt the side grand standing a fascist leader right now. The Texas government has willing cooperated with Trumps border plans. Gavin Newsom (not without his own problems) is at least willing to debate fascists. It is so tone deaf to "both sides" this issue. As a leftist, I am willing to compromise about political organizing and economics. I am not willing to compromise on HUMAN RIGHTS. The right has attacked trans rights viciously the past year or so. They want mass deportation. They want to put homeless people in concentration camps. They use police brutality to quash protests. They call leftists "vermin". They already did a coup and are trying to claim the president is above the law. If you are too much of a coward to say Trump has been and would be a rogue president, please leave me the hell alone with this "lets make peace and communicate". Ive communicated abundantly for over a year now. The conservatives either are in denial or outright dont want to hear it. Tolerance for intolerance is just appeasement. Fascism is too clear cut an evil for me to even consider making amends with it. Just because Alex is too ignorant or too cowardly to say who is in the wrong in our context, doesnt make it my obligation to cease my desperate efforts to preserve the freedom and safety of my friends.
I think the film is a commentary on spectacle. We make spectacle of war in other countries. We watch so much media about the war in other countries and how detached we are from all of it. It makes sense to use photojournalism and getting the perfect shot regardless of the consequences i think it is a bit silly in some aspects and is not a perfect film but i feel the message alex is making pretty clear to me.
That's a really good take. I watched Dunkirk and followed it with Darkest Hour. Dunkirk thrust you into the situation without the intricacies of the political machinations. Darkest Hour, an excellent film on its own, did focus on the political side. I certainly wouldn't choose one over the other. cc @ImpressionBlend
HOWEVER, we already inherently UNDERSTAND the history of that point in time. We understand everything we need to about these events and characters before the film even starts. Civil War creates a fictional war and doesn't communicate the details of it at all. We come into the film with no idea how this war functions in any way. What exactly these people are fighting for/against. So we are unable to take our own subjective opinion from this objective approach.
Another reviewer who doesn't get that not giving all that information is actually the best way to do an anti-war movie. All of the attempts to do anti-war movies in the past fail precisely because the audience ends up choosing sides. Personally, I have always thought that the best approach would be to show a person from outside looking at a war they have no understanding of; think "The Gods Must be Crazy" where the poor fellow tries to give back his bottle in a war torn country. I've had many conversations with peacekeepers who served in places like Somalia or Yugoslavia where there seemed to be little rationale except killing.
I keep seeing people saying there’s too many plot holes. The director isn’t telling us how we got here or why the country is at war. This videos narrator even said that the director didn’t give us much to work with. Don’t you get it? All one needs to do is look at the current state of our country and all the blanks are then filled in. We could be headed in this direction. I’d venture to say to say we will be looking at some of these things happening within the next 4-5 years. The film is giving us a bit of a wake up call! Peace ✌️👽
Honestly, this is probably one of the best worded and most thought-out reviews on the movie I have seen. You explained your reasoning towards your main point highlighted in the title and gave credit to where Garland succeeded. Overall, you had a lot more to say than 10 minutes of "this movie is trash, it is trash because it is trash and made of trash, making it trash" (or that same sentence but with the word trash being substituted for gold). You've highlighted many of the flaws I think this movie also has but have been able to put them into words I found it hard to articulate to others. Something I've thought to how disconnected this movie is overall to the idea of a US civil war is how ultimately, almost any other country could be substituted for the US, and you would have the same story. Sure, if you made the setting for this somewhere like Germany or Canada you would have to change some surface level stuff, but ultimately it would have the same generic "war is hell" story to which we have plenty of. It disconnects itself too much from American politics, the polarization of American citizens, questions on state vs federal loyalties, and so many more things tied up into the complex topic of a modern-day US civil war, to generate a meaningful connection to the American people. In short, Garland has failed in my eyes to generate a meaningful discussion or message for a central theme I can get behind, by ONLY creating an anti-war movie when he set out to create an anti US civil war movie.
It might have altered the entire dynamic if the two journalists, who were ultimately killed by Jesse Plemons' character, had embarked on the adventure alongside the three main characters, only to meet the same fate. However, that could have contradicted the movie's overarching theme of detachment that was consistently present throughout.
I recently had my own double-bill of A24 action movies with "Barely Lethal" and "Civil War", with the latter was my first-time watch. Alex Garland's fourth directed film is an intense and harrowing action film that is also a thought-provoking cautionary tale about desensitization, as well as a great correlation between guns and cameras. Cailee Spaeny, Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura are all amazing actors. Also, the sound design is top-notch, hoping to have at least an Oscar nom for Best Sound next year. Lastly, the now-iconic scene with Jesse Plemons scared the living hell out of everyone, including myself. And it's easily the best action film of the year, IMHO. 💯
I feel like people saying "Civil war doesn't tell me why there's a civil war therefore bad" is just using it as an excuse to cover up how uncomfortable the theme of having a civil war in the US is. Rarely do you see a film that can simultaneously upset people of all different spectrums.
If you don’t know why there is a war how can you be uncomfortable with the idea of civil war in the US? Without the context of the root cause then you can’t be comfortable or uncomfortable it literally has zero meaning whatsoever.
I think it’s less that it makes people feel bad and more that Civil Wars are inherently political and our last one was as well as heavily ideological.I think it tracks that this movie being largely apologetic..is seen as a bit little of a missed opportunity. Usually the idea is that the choices being made in the film hold some significance so a California/Texas alliance holding non seems odd.
It isn't absurd that Cali and Texas would join forces against a runaway President. People act like California is a void of conservatism. More importantly, both states have insane economic and natural resources and Texas has always been flashing the blade of secession to the US. What bothers me about the film is that it felt like a Walking Dead movie without zombies. And it didn't really say anything that the Walking Dead didn't already.
I disagree. I think if the Dictator was a Democrat like Joe Biden California and New York would openly back him. I don’t see any blue states opposing a Democrat in office. If the Dictator were a Republican like Trump, DC would revolt and California and New York would openly declare war and Texas would back the Regime. I know the Director was going for a different angle, but the reality is the country is just too polarized. But I guess that’s why it’s called fiction.
This movie left me with a hollow feeling and confusion. Not for the reasons you may think: 1) It felt hollow because it felt like it was missing a lot of scenes and plot development. 2) There are weird jumps and character interactions that were just spewing semi-intellectual quotes instead of proper dialogue. They sounded realistic in one scene and like robots in the next. Characters did not really evolve and acted very unrealistically in about half the movie!! 2) It was confusing because it didn't show many sides of the conflict and 90% of the time I had no idea which side I was watching. 4) There were also VERY WEIRD musical choices that made me laugh awkwardly and killed the gravity of the situation. It was an interesting setting with a gripping final act, but it felt half-baked throughout.
im really exited about this film and was even more exited when I knew that you were gonna be doing a review for it (cause duh) and I was not let down. I always enjoy how you speak about movies and you thoughts about the themes and meanings! Will we get a "April wrap up"? One of my favorite videos from you as I get so many recommendations from them!?
My take on the movie was that whatever out political differences are, the realities of war make them seem petty by comparison. Hence the focus on the horror and not the politics.
While watching the film, I didn't give a thought to how this fictional civil war came to be because, like Alex Garland, I don't care. (Note: I'm not American and I don't live there; I'm European, but relatively well educated about the current political situation in the US). For me, only the existing situation was decisive for the experience of the film and not how it came about, since in my opinion it was only about the neutral war journalists and photographers and their hunt for taking a/the famous photo, as well as the message (rather image) that war sucks for everyone involved and should be avoided. So I think it's a good trick on Garland's part not to name or allude to the cause of the civil war. I can also completely ignore the fact that Texas and California, of all places, became allies because it's fiction that wants to illustrate where political tension can lead without pointing the finger at anyone. (I don't mind if you see the whole scenario as being set in a parallel universe, the message remains the same). Whether extremism, running for a third term or whatever led to the escalation is irrelevant. I don't feel any desire at all to find out what the possible answer is. In any case, dear people, keep your hands off war and don't even start thinking of it as an option.
See, you’re European so you don’t get it. That’s actually a good argum for ehy the journalists in the film should have been foreigners covering the story for global news. Because they DID NOT behave like Americans who would care one way or the other. I’m sure war in your country would hit differently from war in America. But Garland wants to have it both ways by “shocking the audience” and yet never having his characters really express that. He also doesn’t understand the politics or even geography at play. To get to this state would take A LOT more than “the President suddenly went rogue”. How??
This movie was a little disappointing. Without explaining why the war started, it was hard not to see all the violence and death as needless and meaningless. Context would have helped with this movie.
It doesn't matter how it starts or why it would be horrible. Handmaid's Tale was about the results of a civil war where one side nukes the other takes over the whole country. Politics will divide the country if we let it. Things are already moving this direction it just depends on which side you see as Fascist it may not be the one we think. I like this concept that we could come together for the right reason.
I really like your reviews and they're amongst some big channels I listen to when I want to listen to film chat. Often interesting and lots of good ideas, however, I think the fact that the film has done so well and reached the no1 slot in the US now for several weeks shows how people do understand the subtleties in the plot (e.g. the Texas / California alliance). Even if there's some loud voices seeing what they want to see, the general, mass public seem to be really responding to the film and do understand it's not necessarily choosing sides or calling one group idiots and the other group Saints. It makes me really hopeful for cinema and of audiences that a fairly small, often quiet film has made such a big impact. P.s. I agree with you on MEN, it was far too much and too silly in moments. Thanks for your videos!
The messages were all too clear for me: 1. Buckle up because THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN SOON. 2. War is a horrible thing. Period. I'm working in both states and believe me, Texas & California are aligned in many ways as far as disenchanted Dems in Cali and Texans who are sick to death of all the identity politics. The battle lines are being drawn and that 'Western Front' depicted in the film will have many more states involved with Texas & California 😉
The overarching statement of the movie "Civil War" seems to be, 'FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT'. In the third act, the scene with the white horse being taken and the non-sensationalized killing of the unnamed president played by Nick Offerman sends a clear message: if you attempt to subvert the will of the people, you will be killed without remorse. Why, you ask? I believe this message is directed towards anyone contemplating becoming President of the United States and then attempting to seize power as its first dictator or king by force. "Civil War" may serve as a cautionary tale, especially aimed at a certain narcissist who craves constant attention and control. The message is blunt: if you try, you will face dire consequences. As depicted in the movie, the president's demise was lonely; abandoned by those around him, they admitted to themselves that he wasn't worth dying for. Acts 1 and 2 take the audience on a ride, both literally and figuratively, through the lives of a couple of photojournalists. The initial focus on their perspective seems like a smokescreen designed to engage and captivate viewers. It's a sleight of hand to keep us watching, searching for deeper meaning. This smokescreen presents a story about individuals obsessed with capturing moments that define history-a fame sought after by everyone from Hollywood paparazzi to hardened war journalists. For instance, recall a recent video featuring a photographer with a GoPro strapped to his chest, calmly capturing the chaotic scene after former President Donald Trump was shot on stage. He moves effortlessly, seemingly oblivious to the danger, fixated only on 'taking the picture', over and over. His dedication to his craft is unwavering; he'd risk anything for that perfect shot. This kind of single-minded pursuit is familiar to the movie's writer, who likely draws from personal experiences with such driven individuals. A direct portrayal of a people's army executing a would-be dictator or king wouldn't fare well in today's political climate. Instead, "Civil War" embeds this message within a complex narrative, leaving viewers to unravel the events, motivations, and consequences. The revelation, hidden behind the smoke and mirrors, is the movie's final picture: the president dead on the floor, abandoned by allies, while a couple fighters from the people's army stands over his lifeless body. If you are left baffled thinking what the hell could unite California and Texas, as portrayed as allies in the movie. These politically divergent states band together against a common threat, demonstrating faith that Americans, regardless of their differences, would unite to defend the Constitution and the nation. Truth be told, I haven't seen "Civil War" yet; my insights are based on a few TH-cam videos like this one. Do you think my interpretation holds water?
So, Civil War's problem is that I could ABSOLUTELY tell it was written by someone who understands that there are fault lines in US Society and differences in US culture but doesn't actually know what those things are or mean. It is a vague post. It ultimately comes off as it's just saying "whoa... War maaaaan... It sucks maaaaan." It comes off as trauma porn, at times.
it's sad to see Garland's output become so low quality in his past two films. Maybe he's right to quit directing and go back to writing. I don't think he realizes that sci-fi is his wheelhouse because he should stick to that and only that.
Low quality? This film is a masterpiece on soo many levels, from the cinematography, sound design, the performances The action scenes are brutal and hard hitting, the slow boiling tension scenes have you on a knife edge. Even if you dislike the premise or the type of story being told its very well put together
@@OldhandlewasabitcringeI'll have to see that for myself. I just had no excitement for this movie since it was announced and his last movie Men was frustratingly stupid.
@@Lifesizemortal Yea I would say to go into this with no expectations and you will hopefully be pleasantly surprised. Yea I was not a fan of men or annihilation, but this is a big step up imo
The only reason for war should be to protect life, and civil rights and liberties. When it doesn’t matter to a government, or to any organization, that people have rights and liberties, soon peoples lives will not matter to that government or organization, if it was ever even a concern in the first place.
I feel like keeping it neutral allows the viewers to discuss and imagine what led to the cross sectional moment he wanted to capture. Lacking a statement forces the viewer to wonder what led to that situation and forces them to consider the infinite scenarios.
Fantastic review! My sister and I were trying to articulate why this film just left us underwhelmed, and you summed up all of the issues we had with this film. I wanted to like more than the film's visuals and sound design, but I did not. Like you, I did not need this film to take sides, but Garland did need to explain why certain states teamed up and why other states were unaware that a civil war was even happening. He wanted to say something but chickened out of the worldbuilding because he would have had to get political. At the end, this film just felt safe and hollow, like so much that comes out of modern Hollywood these days.
I said the same thing in my Letterboxd. I really liked this movie and it looks amazing. But not have a clear view on the war or the director’s message makes the viewer disconnected from the film. They could have made this into the deep future or place the war in another country
This movie is about critical distance and the apparatus of capture. But Maybe right now, ‘War is bad’ is a big enough thing all by itself that we all should stop and think about
The reasons are only relevant to the audience right now before the fecal matter hits the fan. Once it hits the fan--the original reasons no longer matter. That's the point of the movie and one that I think is missed by audiences who haven't seen war and are used to having backstory and lore. A lot of the people, on both sides, agitating for civil war and tearing down the system don't understand this. They think a war would usher in their idea of a better world. What they don't understand is they are going to end up as one of two things: a corpse or they'll survive and become a monster. As a veteran turned writer I thought Civil War was actually very rich and complex thematically and in terms of writing.
I could’ve rewritten this story about a nomadic ex soldier who aids some rebels and third party foreigners and journalists. Who must endure foreign invading soldiers, occupiers, republic soldiers, collaborators, bandits, militias, corpos, and some traitors. As well as seeing his ex wife who hasn’t been seen since their child’s death. And that this nomad wanted to take a journey that not only will change his perspective and inner humanity but also would change the outcome of the invading war, the question would be. Would he succeed trying to guide the defenseless civilians, patriotic militiamen, and foreign journalists? Or would he not succeed reaching that journey?
Also my rewrite could be made the president just Ron Swanson. Only enjoying his libertarian lifestyle of his during wartime. Even after a corporate war ravaged the country a year or two before. But this war is much more devastating as its foreign invasion as well as some civil war due to militias on the rise. And the states who had major grudge on the republic for decades since the collapse, creating their own factional military. And not sending their tax money to the capital. Even the foreign invasion was caused by a grudge of nations this country invaded in the 1990s and of course by extension, parts of South America in 2003 to 2010. And this foreign invasion was sparked by the South American federation. A more falangism approach of governance due to the world’s war that occurred before. A war that caused more wars. For this country’s case, the corporate war weakened the country. The main country’s PMC Militech was recently nationalized and needed time to develop. But then the July 4th celebration caused an emp attack and let the invaders come in, also loans weren’t paid to the corporation that bailed the country years before.
I don't mind the neutrality in terms of politics. I just wanted a little more info in terms of what led to the split. We got some info- prez served a 3rd term, attacked citizens, etc but it's treated like background, unimportant info.
I have yet to hear a single person in the real world discuss any interest in or knowledge of this film. I have never heard anyone in the real world comment on the fear of or threat of an actual civil war or anything close to it. My world includes people from all walks, political persuasions, economic conditions etc. Many of whom have very strong opinions on political matters and candidates from both sides and they do not hesitate to share or argue when the time is right. The social media reactions to this film are incredibly overblown(understandably so because nothing like the prospect of Civil War to boost views, likes, shares, and subscriptions). I found the film to be only mildly interesting and not in the least bit thought provoking. Thats just me however and I certainly accept and respect the opinions of those who feel otherwise.
Loved the review. One thing that bothered me was that acceptance of the press for whoever they choose to register. There's no neutrality. Of course they would always be questioned, what side are you at? But I think that wasn't show before to emphasize the real moment of the truth that is the encounter with the ruthless soldier. That, I can believe.
It's hard to craft a good war movie without political context, esp. if, as von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Garland could've written an alternate universe scenario with causal factors quite different from our timeline, resulting in the same tragedies shown, with even more resonance re whether objectivity of the press is moral or even possible in that situation. Years ago I wrote a screenplay, "The First Casualty," about an American reporter covering the Spanish Civil War in 1936 (as ideological a conflict as it gets) and learned that threading the needle of neutrality runs the risk of looking disingenuous.
I honestly think if Garland did a civil war film on literally anywhere else other than America it would be so much better. The factions, the war itself, and the numerous issues with its unwillingness to say anything beyond "War bad" really detracts from the film. Honestly, if I was to make him do anything, I would have him do a film on the Russian Civil war. That was a truly polarizing Civil War where both Far Right and Far Left groups committed massive atrocities against eachother and were pulled to brim of extremism and dehumanization. Setting it in America, now of all times, and trying to be cautious about how you do the film, really limited Garlands potential
I think this is a very valid point. Having this unfold in America is very on the nose and you can’t avoid how politically charged the whole idea is. Then again, civil war as a concept is always going to be political, but it would have been good to see a different setting for sure
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon Marianna. I am looking forward to it. But the best reviews seem to be saying something similar to yours. It would be interesting if there is a longer cut. A couple weeks Alex Garland said he does doesn't want to direct movies anymore. I wonder... He also said that he was influenced by Come and See. High bar indeed. Later: Saw it. I largely agree with Marianna. I enjoyed it. But like you I felt it was harmed by a lack of context. There were many cues that read various aspects of the current political landscape. Also I think we are told that the president is fascistic, but the why is very important here. And not discussed. Nevertheless an interesting film. But flawed.
I am completely shocked and terrified that the ""point" of this film isn't landing with American audiences. The tenor of this video and general discourse around this movie, the ultra evasive critiques and avoidance to engage.. I'm sorry.. his point is resoundingly clear, and evidenced by the exact reception you're a part of. We will not change course until it's here. We will not even fucking try. We won't acknowledge an alternative. We will nitpick reality and each other instead of fucking waking up to our situation and what it demands of us as a citizenry. Deepest American horror i've ever come across. I frankly pray for the USA.
Maybe it’s because I’m already so entrenched in American political discourse online, but i thought it was pretty easy to fill in the gaps of the story. Having everything spelled out would’ve ruined the film for me personally
He can say whatever nonsense he wants, but there's no excuse to have Texas aligned with California instead of Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee, and other southern states. It wouldn't ever happen, even if all of them oppose a tyrannical federal government, no southern state would ever align with California, because they simply don't need to, and the common policies are too radically different. Quick example; California vs southern states' abortion laws. One side sees it as women's health care, the other sees it as straight-up murder. There is no reality where Texas would ever align with California instead of it's neighboring red states.
I feel like even TH-cam critics are hampered by what they really think of the movie, because the meta conversation it is presenting is so controversial. Almost everybody knows what this movie is really saying. If not, watch the real news for once.
I think there is context that is built-in to a certain degree. It’s the current political climate, which is actually not really political. It’s moral. Hate and fear versus love and intelligence. Science is not political. Loved your review.
@@llamasarus1 Sort of. In the sense that it's implied that a lot of people in 'small town America' are able to largely ignore the conflict. But also, I think it's extremely misguided to view that disconnect as something that's actually real, and not mostly manufactured by politicians. The overwhelming majority of people who live in big cities are not "cosmopolitan." They're just people. Often facing the same issues folks in rural communities do -- lack of healthcare, financial insecurity, crumbling infrastructure, etc.
I truly don't think that the movie being politically neutral means it wants the audience to leave the politics behind. I'm sure Garland knew people would talk politically about it and I'm thinking that was the goal. Imo the movie was great and a bit tough to watch sometimes.
No civil war will or would happen like this - at least for the next decade. Civil wars aren't this chaotic and organized and no 'breakaway' nations would retain their borders like how the nations in Civil War keep the borders they had when they were once states.
Its not a question of war is bad, war is a necessity at times. War in the most advanced nation in the world hits home - war in 3rd world is a long way away from reality of most in west. I like the approach in the film - we pick sides and go with it
"what kind of american are you" is thematically important. because when we start dividing Americans into different categories. it drive polarization.I think it is saying that letting things get to the point they were at in the movie is absurd. I also think the discourse around this movie is weird. I thought everything came across pretty clearly, and it seemed pretty intentional that the movie wants us to project our own political ideology onto the situation, and then walk away reexamining that, or in other words "hey idiots. do better or look what happens" and while thats not a new concept, the way the movie said this was neat. the setting was viscerally familiar to americans, but the lack of the history and the photojournalist POV contrasted that familiarity with a feeling of being dropped in a foreign war zone, where there is usually only a basic understanding of the day to day politics or the complexities of what is causing the war. so it is also saying "it can happen here" not only with the narrative but with the entire way the movie was presented. and that is something society should always be reminded of
Finally, a good review, although I mostly disagree. I do think Anti-war films need more credit for what they do. The reality is that most war films are pro-war films, and It takes some risky decisions to make a film that makes the audience uncomfortable and refuses to pull its punches for the sake of a conclusive ending or satisfying pay offs. War is bad, civil war in America would be bad. Simple message, not that easy to get across to a lot of people.
The film is impressive. I am struggling to understand why reviewers are reviewing the film they wanted to get instead of the film they got. The film is about many things. However, the film is not a fictionalised narrative about how the US will find itself in a second civil conflict. The US setting is just window dressing; instead, it explores what modern civil wars look like where areas of the affected countries are running as before, but others are heavily affected. In some places, you have law and order. In other parts, people interpret the war differently and hence fight it in different ways, even committing war crimes; in other areas, you have total chaos and lawlessness. The film captures that sense of anarchy and dread perfectly. As far as the California and Texas thing, people who dismiss it are only thinking about a two-sided civil war; today, a country under civil war will have several factions jocking for power. In the movie, you have several sides; it is not inconceivable that the president was so awful that two factions join up and take him out to later have a go at each other (in fact, it is a potential scenario referenced in the film). It could also be the case that early on in the war, one state beat the other and installed a leadership that aligned with the idea of taking out the president. Surely, we don't need to be spoonfed exposition about what went before. We all have enough cultural capital to understand what civil wars were and what they are today. The film we got is incredible, so let's not review the film we didn't get.
I really enjoyed this movie. I was even saying to my friends that The Western Forces being made up of California and Texas may seem nonsensical at first, but they should think about it a little more. If the government that took over the USA was so tyrannical that it caused two politically different states to join forces against the greater evil, then yeah I could plausibly see it happening in that context. It reminded me of how the USA and Soviet Union were technically allied because they wanted to defeat Nazi Germany. But as soon as Germany was defeated, the two powers focused back on each other.
The discourse behind this movie is so strange to me because when I was watching the movie, hearing that the president was trying to be a dictator was enough for me to understand that a majority of the country wanted him dead. I thought that was more than enough motivation to understand the context of the war. Some people remain loyal to the president and some people don’t want American to become a dictatorship. Idk what else to say
Dicks wanting more power is in every comic book movie today. It still would've been dare I say it interesting to understand why he did what he did and why so many others followed him.
“Dude wants more power” is a comic book trope. We might as well replace him with Commander Cobra if the movie fails to even hint and the ideological framework and political conditions that made his ascension possible.
There was 4 different factions fighting. Apart from looneys just out killing people. It wasn’t one side against another.
@@rygarnett if u wanna get technical yea I guess but the Florida alliance for example had the same goal as the western forces if I remember correctly cuz there was a line I believe where the president was telling them to stand down or something like that
@user-if1cu6uh9h Naw, I’m an adult.
Garland's mistake is that he misread the room.
He doesn't understand, or refuse to do so, that there are large numbers of Americans - on either side of America's strange political spectrum - who don't care about the horrors of war if it can be visited on those they consider as "deserving it."
Garland is putting up a picture to your average American at a time when the most probable response would either be, "The heck is that, bro?" (as in total misunderstanding of his message) or "hell yeah, that's what I'm talking about!."
That's exactly why he made it now.
And that's not what it's about.
A director doesn't have to bend to what people want or don't want or have to realize any of that. The best actually make their movies in spite of that
There are multiple perspectives presented in the film: people who horde resources and kill their neighbours, people who pretend nothing is happening and try to stay out of it, people who enthusiastically jump on the chance to be part of the action or act out their dark desires, people who are just trying to stay alive and some may find a little joy amongst chaos, and people who are horrified this is happening in their homeland, but try to carry on. Lee's existential crisis stemmed from the fact that her photos of the horrors of war didn't seem to have the impact she wanted --- preventing more war from happening. I don't think it would have helped by removing the film's setting even farther from America. We keep getting WWII movies every year, but fascism is still on the rise.
When it boils down to it, the reasons why we got here truly don't matter. As soon as you dive into the reasons, there could be a rationale to "justify" war. Maybe not a reasonable or moral rationale, just A rationale. Perhaps the debate about this movie is the point. If we can't get over "how we got here" and want to quash the possibility and reject any reason for a Civil War, we are inevitably heading that way. Garland is the journalist; we should be asking questions.
Well put. People's reaction to the film, wanting to know about how it started so they can point fingers are someone, is exactly the problem Civil War is trying to illustrate. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a photographer, if you stop caring about the person next to you, that's the problem.
Sometimes war is just. If a president declares themselves dictator and refuses to leave office while attacking citizens, going to war with him is morally just and defending him is morally unjust. An action film set around civil war in the US pretending that war doesn’t have sides and the causes don’t matter is delusional centrist propaganda
Can't agree more, well said.
Wanting to know how we got there isn't so we can point fingers at someone - it's about understanding the complexity of the situation and how to avoid it. As is, we remain with the snipers' view of the situation: someone's shooting at us, we're shooting at them. While the film is trying to warn against that very thing, it simultaneously falls into the same logic because it treats context as an irrelevant element. I do think it's an interesting discussion to have though, we seem to be coming at this from different angles.
As for multiple perspectives - I wouldn't call those brief encounters actual perspectives, we know nothing about them except for their behavior in one isolated situation. The only true POVs we get are the 4 people in the car, and even they don't all feel like fully fleshed-out characters.
Well I think a big problem with a lot of those world war II movies is that they actually don't delvin to why fascism rises and that's the problem I had with this film I think they had a missed opportunity. It would have rooted the action in a larger context and made the film a lot more powerful.
Once i was in germany for a conference with social psychologists specialized in group conflict and political psychology. I (a Brazilian) was talking to an US citizen from that conference and was surprised of how much he believed that political instability was only something that underdeveloped countries could have. I took it almost as a political immaturity from him, and said something like "this could happen to the US too you know" and he denied completely. One year later the invasion of the capital happened and he even wrote me, saying that i was right. Just give the right conditions the right political forces opposing, the conflict of interest. It can happen anywhere.
It can happen, but it wouldn’t look like it does in other nations and would take longer. The Capitol wasn’t “invaded”; people were for the most part let in. But if you’re gonna call that an invasion, surely the “migrant crisis” is one too. Consider how polarized the nation was in the 1960s regarding foreign wars, civil rights, the President was liter assassinated, and yet no civil war. There is no way America turns to civil war simply over one President. They would just take him out. Multiple US presidents have been assassinated. Our only civil war (or two if you count the revolution) were about major grievances involving groups, where military force was involved, not centralized anger at one guy.
@@TrekBeatTK well, in other nations, conflicts are, often times, financed by international forces. Many of the countries we see on tv having political crisis were because foreign countries had economic interest in this particular country and financed some sort of invasion or internal coup. It was what happened in Chile and Brazil for example. So, yes, it would be different in the US. Im not saying the invasion of the capitol was civil war, i was talking about instability. What i was trying to argue, is that i was amazed of how much an US citizen believes that they are immune to serious political crisis, as if it was a problem of the poor countries.
Was he a random guy at the conference or was he one of the social psychologists? It's hard to believe someone that educated, especially in that subject, could be so naive.
@@azula3906he was a specialist on a big university of the USA! I understand it might be hard to believe, but there is a lot of prejudice underlying these assumptions. He was a great inteligent guy, but I believe it is very important for US citizens to believe that other countries have conflict because they are corrupt, poor, or evil. Its easier that way. As if stability was about competence, and global south countries are just incompetent somehow.
@mixgb
I guess very powerful nations in any given era have a certain irrational narcissism about them. When I think about that, it makes your experience easier to believe.
This movies reminds of Night Crawler where the journalist have an almost perverse desire to photograph and document clearly provocative images such as death and violence. The older journalist are used to seeing death, and seem indifferent to seeing somebody die right before their eyes and have no desire to intervene. They have basically become a sentient camera or like they are document wild animals. In the beginning the younger journalist is the opposite and is clearly unprepared and greatly affected by such grisly scenes but towards the end we see this attribute in the younger journalist as well.
If your perspective was that the older journalists were unaffected by seeing all of that death, you might want to consider watching the movie again. And pay attention this time to Lee's eyes when she sees what she sees. It's all in the eyes.
So why not have the journalists somewhere like Ukraine or Gaza so you don’t have to explain anything?
Exactly and a whole movie about that is blah, play a game, same thing. Tired of violence, especially when it’s treated as a good time to get a picture.
Except Nightcrawler is a good movie that has the right tone for what it is doing. It has a compelling main character and good supporting cast. It has focus and wit. This movie has nothing going for it.
I think the point came across crystal clear and I will quote my Bosnian refugee rack mate from basic training in the 90’s: “Don’t ever think it can’t happen here. That’s what we thought and then our neighbors began killing each other.”
Large countries break up into smaller countries all the time throughout history and there are global powers who would find us much easier to deal with if we were no longer united and are invested in making that happen.
I hope everyone watches Welcome to Sarajevo after this movie because everything from this was taken from things that actually happen when countries break up.
This movie was less an appeal to civility and more a 5 alarm wake up call.
You nailed it. It’s interesting that the main characters are reporters and photographers and that we see scenes often turned into photographs. I see the film like a photograph, a snapshot of civil conflict and atrocity. When you look at photograph, you don’t necessarily get all the context or background or explanation that everyone is crying about. Garland is addressing the division and the glib eagerness for conflict that so many seem to have by holding up a picture for us and asking “is this what you really want?”
@@EmeraldWaterHawk couldn’t of said it better.
I can guarantee the events of this movie would never happen here. I could see a possible civil war but absolutely not like this.
America is not Yugoslavia. Also, the Bosnian War was caused by actual political disagreements. It was not “apolitical” like this movie was.
You’d be surprised at how many people today think that a reset is needed (on either side of the Overton window)… they fantasize that it will just be a weekend at the beach and somehow we all just get back on with our lives.
Whether it’s Seattle Portland for one side of the spectrum or the capital/ Charlottesville on the other… more people then the average person might think are very much thinking some akin to civil war is not only possible but probably should happen.
This film is hoping to be a wake up cal to those people, and people that may unfortunately be enabling something that could become real.
I know there are some crazies out there who think we "need" a civil war, but my genuine hope is that it's a minority of people who slept through their history classes at school and don't understand the fallout and human cost of this.
@@ImpressionBlend there are a lot of them… but orders of magnitude more useful idiots whom are adjacent to them.
@@ImpressionBlenddelusional. It’s so much closer than you think. You aren’t in The shoes of generations of pissed off and disenfranchised young men.
People have no idea what’s coming. The shit storm we’ve created for ourselves.
@@steveg2277 it just feels that way - there's a lot of manufactured grievance being incited by grifters who make money and clout from it.
most people are quite content with food in their bellies and a roof over their heads. some things do need to change, but violence will not achieve anything good.
@@tomas-qr2el Equally as delusional. “It just feels that way”
lol some people.
Just because I recognize the reality doesn’t mean I want it to come to fruition. Like you, I’d rather it not happen at all, but let’s not be naive and act like this isn’t a very real threat that we’re facing. All power is won through violence. (Overt or implied)
How are people so unaware of this stuff? As long as there are men, there will be wars.
Call me naive but i really dont think you can have too many anti-war films, or depict how ease it is for modern day civility to disappear. I was a bit disappointed that there was no context for this film, but once I got past thst, it didn't bother, since in most circumstances when this sort of thing happens the average person is just stuck in the middle trying to keep them self and those they care about safe.
I think the lack of context was entirely the point, for the reasons you said. Like, I didn't need the context for why the two (or three, or four) sides were fighting, because the context wasn't the point of the film. You weren't meant to obsess over why they were fighting, because the "why" of it all doesn't really matter to the average person. It's like the two men trying to take out the shooter in the house said, right? They weren't getting orders from anyone. They were just trying to kill that guy before he killed them. They were just trying not to die.
Well, we know that the president is in third term and he supress FBI ... this two things alone can explain why there is a civil war
"or depict how ease it is for modern day civility to disappear."
Where is this depicted?
I felt Civil Wars story arc is quite simular to Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness and in that sense it's more about the inner journey of Jessie (Cailee Spaeny).
Who's s that? And I watched the movie. That's how broring it was.
Except the characters are nowhere near as interesting.
This film is a good conversation starter.
Next time you gather around the table just ask them "What kind of American are you?"
😂
I can’t decide if Garland isn’t being a bit disingenuous with his answer about the California-Texas Alliance. The message sounds correct at a surface listen but then he has only two states willing to put aside their political differences to overthrow a dictator. Maybe he feels more states would dilute the impact of having the cooperation of the two poster children for “opposing political views” (a general belief I’m not sure I agree with as I feel, despite the vitriol in discourse in our nation, we still have more in common than we are considering while arguing). Yet by saying only these two could put aside their issues for the good of the nation, what is he saying about the other forty-eight states? I can’t believe more wouldn’t stand for the unity of a country and so, by focusing on just the Big Two allying, it removes the credibility of his reasoning and takes me out of the story; an issue plenty of other things did in the movie.
This is a good point! I think you're right though, he wanted to two extremes coming together to illustrate this idea of coming together for a greater purpose.
CA-TX makes sense because they are the most economically powerful states and also have geographical advantages. A huge amount of our military's weapons are also manufactured in those states. They are really the only two states geographically situated to from an economic & military coalition strong enough to take on the federal government.
I’m get the economic reason for sure but that raises the question why is Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico not also in that camp. That they are explicitly in a different group says there is an idea logical split. And that isn’t explained as far as I can tell.
@@nonionbeezness Yeah, that doesn't make sense. You would think a CA-TX alliance would want contiguous land.
@@nonionbeezness The map shown is the state of the nation after the civil war has been going on (they never say for how long), and we are witnessing the end of it in the film. Wagner Moura tells us that Washington and Oregon are the "Portland Maoists" of the New People's Army. It ranges all the way to Minnesota by the end of the war. Possibly Chinese backed? Plemons's character hints that the Florida Alliance is Central American backed invasion, but we can't be sure if that is just his opinion. The president further claims that the FA was trying to take the Carolinas by force, but that could be propaganda. Both those sources of info are unreliable. The older NYT reporter states that The Western Forces are an alliance of convenience or necessity, and he thinks they will fight each other after DC falls. So, some of the states we see on the map might not willingly be in the factions shown. I highly doubt Wyoming or Utah would decide to turn Maoist.
The US and Russia also have a ton of resources and a lot of factories but they don’t work together.
But Texas and California are ideologically at odds. You can put them into the same camp but you'll need to explain how the two came together.
I've lived 'context and background' for 73 years. Most people I know are either heterodox right or left, left but not Democrat, Right but not Republican, Independent or Libertarian, or Politically Homeless and afraid to talk about their feelings for fear of being canceled. I've never seen this country as fucked up as it is now. Basically I wouldn't trust either side for these reasons. But I don't want a Civil War.
Many argue that you experienced peak US as all the factors were suitable for the US to become what it did. Those conditions are not there anymore or have changed dramatically.
At 63 and a retired navy servicemember the game that is being played is of the UN and the extreme wealthiest doing. We did not have to take this path the USA will breakup and will be attacked at some point all it would take is a major earthquake with cat 5 storms with riot's like the 80's at the same time.Just thnk about taking away every cellphone today.
One of the few recent times a non-matinee movie audience was 95% quiet. I miss that.
As far as anti war films go, Come and See and Stalingrad are two of the best. The concept of Civil War seems interesting, as it’s not something I’ve seen done before. So I’ll probably check it out, even if it isn’t that good.
Apparently, "Come and See" was a big inspiration for Garland here, he talks about it a bunch.
@@ImpressionBlendCome and See executes the true horrors of war on a postgraduate/doctorate level. Civil War executes it on a special needs first grader level.
In other words, the inspiration fell flat and was run over by a steam roller 100 times to further flatten it
Stalingrad😂😂😂 fucking please. Get out of here
I think showing the story through the neutral journalists perspective was exactly what made this movie good and special. It was interesting to see it through the perspective of three generations of journalists and their development during their journey.
Movie trivia game: The Jesse Plemons character in the movie,
The guy wearing the red glasses, identify his character affiliation,
A. KKK
B. proud boys
C. oath keepers
D. christian nationalists
E. american nazi party
F. american communist party
G. local freelance militia
H. white supremacist
I. cornbread mafia
J. the posse
K. project 2025
L. christofascist agenda
M. seven mountain mandate
I think you can take white supremacist out. One of the persons he talks to has a semblance of latino (hence the "central? South?" aimed question.)
But otherwise, it's not that important: He's a genocidal, cold blooded sociopath, relishing in that civil war. He's having a great time.
K ?
christian nationalist ? what kinda christians you got there lol
- Where r u from?
- Hong Kong
- Oh, China
Pang🤕🤕🤕
while I agree with almost all said here, I don't in the "we know war is terrible" statement, as a non-US seeing US culture from the outside, I don't think they really know war is awful, at least not as the "host country" of it, war has been an outside thing for the US, the perception focused in their military forces in other countries, and at personal level by proxy with family and friends going to war, but always as an "external" thing, one bombing in Perl Harbor, a site most didn't even know it existed before the bombing and 9/11 and their entire world view crumbled, I agree, it was a devastating moment, but at the end of the day it was just 2 buildings, nothing compared with the Blitz in WWII, nor military forces walking and shooting in the streets, no fear of drone strikes at any moment. The "dystopian future" of the movie is just a regular occurrence in many places and yet many US citizens toy with toxic and dangerous ideologies like Nazism and Communism/Socialism as it were sports teams, and taking political divisions to ridiculous extremes.
Just the fact that 2 states working together seems ridiculous it on itself ridiculous to me from the outside.
So yea, from the outside seems like US-citizens do not, appreciate how horrible war is, how privileged they are and how dangerously extremist both sides are now. And to me both sides seem very extremist and intolerant, both beyond absurd.
I loved it, while not perfect I was thoroughly entertained. When there is a dictator in the white house it makes sense that a bunch of culture war nonsense would be set aside to deal with a real threat. There is even a line in the movie about how when the president falls the factions will likely turn on each other.
I loved it as well👍
this movie is more about the photographers than the war. it makes is ABUNDANTLY clear - so i don’t know why the discourse behind this movie is so focused on the geopolitics than the actual plot
"I have no idea why people would focus on the politics of a movie about a modern American civil war in a movie named Civil War" lmao. Also look up Garlands quotes about what he thinks the left and right divide really is, garland comes off as a centrist
In that case he should have used a real war and just put fictional characters in it. Then you wouldn't need to explain why the war happened because people would already have a good idea. The problem is he creates a completely fictional war and then gives no explanation for why it happened. That's annoying.
@@edwinv196 He used contradiction (California joining Texas) as a way to make clear that the reasons are completely arbitrary and dissipating the “why” to focus in the “what’s next?”.
People have forgotten how to watch movies
agreed - it's about the photojournalist. and it's also a work of FICTION. made up. not some biblical prophecy about lame political division. why so serious?
One of my favourite anti-war films is War Horse. The portrayal of war as its own monster that takes on a life of its own, regardless of the reasons for the war or the underlying motivations of the warring parties was so effective. The portrayal of war from the horse's perspective as a horrific fight for survival heightened this.
Incendies is another anti-war film that I thought was incredible. Again, the reasons and motivation for the war didn't matter (although they allude to the sectarian conflict in Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War was itself was extremely complex). Its focus on the portrayal of war as a grotesque Shakespearean tragedy that strips people of their humanity was the key message for me.
I do hope Civil War conveys something similar and I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Anyome else think the choice of music in this film made the anti-war message seem sarcastic?
Wouldn't call it sarcastic. I think it was to drive the point home about how mundane all of the violence is to the main characters and the people who inhabit the world of the movie.
I think the point of the movie was to make you ask all the questions that you’re asking in the video. Sounds like a successful movie.
A film is not just supposed to ask questions. It's also supposed to provide you the tools to draw your own conclusions. Garland failed in that regard.
The title of the movie is what gets all the discussion going. Nothing much in the movie is enlightening about a civil war.
This movie was interesting because it was vague about what led up to the Cilvil War. It focused more on the humanity and how journalists would handle this intense situation in a 24 hour news cycle world.
5:00 Historically plausible as Texas and California already have aligned on 18 seperate occassions...when they both voted for the same candidate for president. 18 TIMES. Let that sink in.
COULD NOT AGREE MORE. This movie is so thin.
I was disappointed in the film. Nothing felt less relevant to the times we find ourselves in. It didn’t feel like an anti-war film. What it felt like was a paintball tournament that had somehow gotten out of control. Or a knock-off zombie flick without the zombies. Just poorly written stock characters road tripping from scene to scene of gratuitous, mind-numbing violence, purposefully devoided of any meaningful context. Why are these people killing each-other? What is driving them to do this? Take away that dimension and what is left is little more than a voyueristic spectacle that trivializes its subjects at best and worse, leaves the underlying causes open for every hyper-polarized bad actor to insert their own warped values into.
Remember Children of Men (2006)? THAT was a dystopian flick that felt like it had something to say about political polarization, creeping fascism, war, and xenophobia. That and the numbing effect it has on the human psych. And it did it SO much better, because it didn’t shy away from being topical. It felt both relevant to its own time but also predictive of our own and it was made in 2006, not 2024.
Children of men is a masterpiece, but its topic is different. Political polarization is not mentioned, it's a lot more about wealth, basic rascism, populism/fascism in finding a scapegoat, that desperation brings the worst out of everyone (the only "good" people die as well as the worst people). It's also a lot about the progression of the character that is apathic to empathic which brings him to his own demise (Initial scene: Doesn't care about people: Avoids the bomb. End: Saves someone: Dies) so self sacrifice for a greater good.
This movie is anti-war but a lot less bleak, because we're basically seeing the end of that step of the civil war where everyone has already accepted this as the new reality. Some fight against it, some don't want to see it, some live through it, many die because of it. It's not for nothing that this is following the "road trip" of journalists: They are observers, some of them for the rush of it, some disillusioned, some out of habit, others because they want to share it. We follow them as observers. We can see what it brings from them.
The main characters are not likeable. They all have massive flaws. They are just... People with an objective. That encounter people. In a massive mess. That witness suffering caused by society being divided and the rise of authoritarians.
Its weird to call this an anti-war movie. The movie shows the successful elimination of a stereotypical fascist via war ... thanks to the union of TX and CA.
Somebody once said that every sci-fi spaceship battle is an attempt to recreate a WW2 dogfight (even though spaceships would never fly and fire like that). By extension, I'm thinking all war movies are an inadvertant attempt to recreate WW2 as well.
It's an incredibly important film in my view. I've heard him say that he's tired of the distrust in journalism and that's a big reason why he made the film. I would say that a lot of people, myself included, are tired of not being informed objectively about the world. It's come to that. The journalism he portrays in this film is what it's supposed to be. What it used to be. How we're given the news feeds into how we think about what happened. Maybe more modern day journalism should take a hint from Civil War. Great Review.
The music during certain scenes in this film seemed to glorify violence rather than condemn it. Poor taste for an anti-war film IMO.
You didn’t get it then, its clearly meant to juxtapose the violence on screen and make you double take when the “good guys” are having a feel good war crime moment
Marianna, it’s like you were in my head! Wow, I literally agree with everything you said. This was a frustrating film because the elements were there, but it felt like they got cold feet and removed a lot of the context and development that was sorely needed.
Thanks Kyle! Really enjoyed your review as well!
Thank you. You encapsulated my issues with this movie. A release titled Civil War: The Year of a Divisive Election in a Polarized Political Climate (and Country). I heard an interview on Mayo and Kermod, and it frankly pissed me off. You rightly state that "you can't have it both ways." I would go further. I found it to be condescending to the audience.
Its sad that some folks need a film like this spelled out for them.
Then they most likely won't like it.
Civil war was good at sending a message, but not much else. A24 has a habit of leaning so much into the artsiness or moral of a story that they forget to make a worthwhile plot that’s actually entertaining. This entire movie was a depressing road trip with quirky music and no plot progression.
I hate how everyone who defends the film thinks that those who didn't like it its because they want it "spelled out for them." Trust me WE GET IT. The problem is it is such a surface level exploration of these events/characters/themes. It tries to provide an objective and apolitical perspective on a fictionalized American civil war. That's frankly mind boggling.
It's sad that you're actually so goddamn pretentious that you genuinely believe that that's why people didn't like it. If anything, it shows that you're the stupid one because you're so full of yourself that you really believe that's why people have a problem with it.
Love your review Marianna! You completely nailed it and it’s good to see a few reviewers saying this. All the accolades Civil War is getting makes zero sense to me. The film felt very empty and I agree fully with you that it was a missed opportunity. It’s a bit sad that Garland has to constantly explain what he was trying to do in interviews rather than his film actually providing that to the audience upon viewing.
Thank you! I think the shocking nature of it can really be overwhelming and make the film feel more impactful than it actually is. But then you sit with it and you realize it actually didn't have anything deeper to it, which is sad.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This movie is about what that concept looks like in the context of a Civil War. This movie is a warning to both sides of a dystopian future to take a moment to reflect before things go to far. When you play a game of chicken (two cars racing toward each other) and neither side pulls up, you get a head on collision. Does not matter the merit of your side if it leads to a MAD ending. This is less perhaps of a movie with a narrative story, than a warning for a time traveler from the future with a message to both sides to work to me more civil, and avoid war, its not worth it, it is MAD..
Im going to be candid and say this: I HATE radical moderates. I understand the distasteful nature of politics and the desire to stay away from it, but I am SO tired of finger wagging from people who refuse to take a side in the face of blatant and obvious evil.
I can give the movie credit for the desire to portray civil war as an inherently destructive and undesirable undertaking. We need this kind of messaging to rebuke people like Tim Pool and the Boog boys who pursue wreckless war mongering for seemingly no justifiable reason.
However, this "people who cant see Texas and California getting along show a greater commitment to partisan politics than to opposition to fascism" is total B.S.
The left isnt the side grand standing a fascist leader right now. The Texas government has willing cooperated with Trumps border plans. Gavin Newsom (not without his own problems) is at least willing to debate fascists.
It is so tone deaf to "both sides" this issue. As a leftist, I am willing to compromise about political organizing and economics. I am not willing to compromise on HUMAN RIGHTS. The right has attacked trans rights viciously the past year or so. They want mass deportation. They want to put homeless people in concentration camps. They use police brutality to quash protests. They call leftists "vermin". They already did a coup and are trying to claim the president is above the law.
If you are too much of a coward to say Trump has been and would be a rogue president, please leave me the hell alone with this "lets make peace and communicate". Ive communicated abundantly for over a year now. The conservatives either are in denial or outright dont want to hear it.
Tolerance for intolerance is just appeasement. Fascism is too clear cut an evil for me to even consider making amends with it.
Just because Alex is too ignorant or too cowardly to say who is in the wrong in our context, doesnt make it my obligation to cease my desperate efforts to preserve the freedom and safety of my friends.
Attempting to portray the media as neutral is the dumbest ploy ever.
I think the film is a commentary on spectacle. We make spectacle of war in other countries. We watch so much media about the war in other countries and how detached we are from all of it. It makes sense to use photojournalism and getting the perfect shot regardless of the consequences i think it is a bit silly in some aspects and is not a perfect film but i feel the message alex is making pretty clear to me.
I like your take! I can definitely see that
It reminds me of Dunkirk as both movies are about feeling the vibes and experiencing the situation.
This. Dunkirk was also very ambiguous if it was pro British or Pro German...
That's a really good take. I watched Dunkirk and followed it with Darkest Hour. Dunkirk thrust you into the situation without the intricacies of the political machinations. Darkest Hour, an excellent film on its own, did focus on the political side. I certainly wouldn't choose one over the other. cc @ImpressionBlend
Both suk
HOWEVER, we already inherently UNDERSTAND the history of that point in time. We understand everything we need to about these events and characters before the film even starts. Civil War creates a fictional war and doesn't communicate the details of it at all. We come into the film with no idea how this war functions in any way. What exactly these people are fighting for/against. So we are unable to take our own subjective opinion from this objective approach.
Another reviewer who doesn't get that not giving all that information is actually the best way to do an anti-war movie. All of the attempts to do anti-war movies in the past fail precisely because the audience ends up choosing sides. Personally, I have always thought that the best approach would be to show a person from outside looking at a war they have no understanding of; think "The Gods Must be Crazy" where the poor fellow tries to give back his bottle in a war torn country. I've had many conversations with peacekeepers who served in places like Somalia or Yugoslavia where there seemed to be little rationale except killing.
There's not giving everything away, and then there's expecting the viewer to basically make the movie for you.
I keep seeing people saying there’s too many plot holes. The director isn’t telling us how we got here or why the country is at war. This videos narrator even said that the director didn’t give us much to work with. Don’t you get it? All one needs to do is look at the current state of our country and all the blanks are then filled in. We could be headed in this direction. I’d venture to say to say we will be looking at some of these things happening within the next 4-5 years. The film is giving us a bit of a wake up call! Peace ✌️👽
Honestly, this is probably one of the best worded and most thought-out reviews on the movie I have seen. You explained your reasoning towards your main point highlighted in the title and gave credit to where Garland succeeded. Overall, you had a lot more to say than 10 minutes of "this movie is trash, it is trash because it is trash and made of trash, making it trash" (or that same sentence but with the word trash being substituted for gold).
You've highlighted many of the flaws I think this movie also has but have been able to put them into words I found it hard to articulate to others. Something I've thought to how disconnected this movie is overall to the idea of a US civil war is how ultimately, almost any other country could be substituted for the US, and you would have the same story. Sure, if you made the setting for this somewhere like Germany or Canada you would have to change some surface level stuff, but ultimately it would have the same generic "war is hell" story to which we have plenty of. It disconnects itself too much from American politics, the polarization of American citizens, questions on state vs federal loyalties, and so many more things tied up into the complex topic of a modern-day US civil war, to generate a meaningful connection to the American people.
In short, Garland has failed in my eyes to generate a meaningful discussion or message for a central theme I can get behind, by ONLY creating an anti-war movie when he set out to create an anti US civil war movie.
Same!!! I walked out at the end and thought "so what was the point other than War is Bad?"
Hurrah, any impression blend is a good day. Dredd & Ex-Machina my fave Garland films x
It might have altered the entire dynamic if the two journalists, who were ultimately killed by Jesse Plemons' character, had embarked on the adventure alongside the three main characters, only to meet the same fate. However, that could have contradicted the movie's overarching theme of detachment that was consistently present throughout.
If California and Texas have anything in common, it’s the importance of states’ rights.
Blames the audience for his poor narrative and his infantile "orange man bad" plot.
I recently had my own double-bill of A24 action movies with "Barely Lethal" and "Civil War", with the latter was my first-time watch. Alex Garland's fourth directed film is an intense and harrowing action film that is also a thought-provoking cautionary tale about desensitization, as well as a great correlation between guns and cameras. Cailee Spaeny, Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura are all amazing actors. Also, the sound design is top-notch, hoping to have at least an Oscar nom for Best Sound next year.
Lastly, the now-iconic scene with Jesse Plemons scared the living hell out of everyone, including myself. And it's easily the best action film of the year, IMHO. 💯
This was a great review. I will be trying to wrap my head around this film, probably for years. This review helps me do that.
"I'm a war movie."
"Okay. What kind of war movie are you?"
I feel like people saying "Civil war doesn't tell me why there's a civil war therefore bad" is just using it as an excuse to cover up how uncomfortable the theme of having a civil war in the US is. Rarely do you see a film that can simultaneously upset people of all different spectrums.
If you don’t know why there is a war how can you be uncomfortable with the idea of civil war in the US? Without the context of the root cause then you can’t be comfortable or uncomfortable it literally has zero meaning whatsoever.
It's a movie. Some stakes have to be set. That's just basic writing. It tried so hard to be apolitical it just caved in on itself.
I think it’s less that it makes people feel bad and more that Civil Wars are inherently political and our last one was as well as heavily ideological.I think it tracks that this movie being largely apologetic..is seen as a bit little of a missed opportunity. Usually the idea is that the choices being made in the film hold some significance so a California/Texas alliance holding non seems odd.
It isn't absurd that Cali and Texas would join forces against a runaway President. People act like California is a void of conservatism. More importantly, both states have insane economic and natural resources and Texas has always been flashing the blade of secession to the US. What bothers me about the film is that it felt like a Walking Dead movie without zombies. And it didn't really say anything that the Walking Dead didn't already.
I disagree. I think if the Dictator was a Democrat like Joe Biden California and New York would openly back him. I don’t see any blue states opposing a Democrat in office. If the Dictator were a Republican like Trump, DC would revolt and California and New York would openly declare war and Texas would back the Regime. I know the Director was going for a different angle, but the reality is the country is just too polarized. But I guess that’s why it’s called fiction.
This movie left me with a hollow feeling and confusion. Not for the reasons you may think:
1) It felt hollow because it felt like it was missing a lot of scenes and plot development.
2) There are weird jumps and character interactions that were just spewing semi-intellectual quotes instead of proper dialogue. They sounded realistic in one scene and like robots in the next. Characters did not really evolve and acted very unrealistically in about half the movie!!
2) It was confusing because it didn't show many sides of the conflict and 90% of the time I had no idea which side I was watching.
4) There were also VERY WEIRD musical choices that made me laugh awkwardly and killed the gravity of the situation.
It was an interesting setting with a gripping final act, but it felt half-baked throughout.
im really exited about this film and was even more exited when I knew that you were gonna be doing a review for it (cause duh) and I was not let down. I always enjoy how you speak about movies and you thoughts about the themes and meanings! Will we get a "April wrap up"? One of my favorite videos from you as I get so many recommendations from them!?
My take on the movie was that whatever out political differences are, the realities of war make them seem petty by comparison. Hence the focus on the horror and not the politics.
While watching the film, I didn't give a thought to how this fictional civil war came to be because, like Alex Garland, I don't care. (Note: I'm not American and I don't live there; I'm European, but relatively well educated about the current political situation in the US). For me, only the existing situation was decisive for the experience of the film and not how it came about, since in my opinion it was only about the neutral war journalists and photographers and their hunt for taking a/the famous photo, as well as the message (rather image) that war sucks for everyone involved and should be avoided. So I think it's a good trick on Garland's part not to name or allude to the cause of the civil war. I can also completely ignore the fact that Texas and California, of all places, became allies because it's fiction that wants to illustrate where political tension can lead without pointing the finger at anyone. (I don't mind if you see the whole scenario as being set in a parallel universe, the message remains the same). Whether extremism, running for a third term or whatever led to the escalation is irrelevant. I don't feel any desire at all to find out what the possible answer is.
In any case, dear people, keep your hands off war and don't even start thinking of it as an option.
See, you’re European so you don’t get it. That’s actually a good argum for ehy the journalists in the film should have been foreigners covering the story for global news. Because they DID NOT behave like Americans who would care one way or the other. I’m sure war in your country would hit differently from war in America. But Garland wants to have it both ways by “shocking the audience” and yet never having his characters really express that. He also doesn’t understand the politics or even geography at play. To get to this state would take A LOT more than “the President suddenly went rogue”. How??
This movie was a little disappointing. Without explaining why the war started, it was hard not to see all the violence and death as needless and meaningless. Context would have helped with this movie.
It's true, it almost feels gratuitous because you have no context.
Did you mean ‘hard not to see’ ?
@@perrin6 Yes, I corrected this. Thank you for pointing it out :)
That's literally the whole point of the movie
@@skleetbeast The movie has no point. Just death and violence for the sake of death and violence.
It doesn't matter how it starts or why it would be horrible. Handmaid's Tale was about the results of a civil war where one side nukes the other takes over the whole country. Politics will divide the country if we let it. Things are already moving this direction it just depends on which side you see as Fascist it may not be the one we think. I like this concept that we could come together for the right reason.
I really like your reviews and they're amongst some big channels I listen to when I want to listen to film chat. Often interesting and lots of good ideas, however, I think the fact that the film has done so well and reached the no1 slot in the US now for several weeks shows how people do understand the subtleties in the plot (e.g. the Texas / California alliance). Even if there's some loud voices seeing what they want to see, the general, mass public seem to be really responding to the film and do understand it's not necessarily choosing sides or calling one group idiots and the other group Saints. It makes me really hopeful for cinema and of audiences that a fairly small, often quiet film has made such a big impact. P.s. I agree with you on MEN, it was far too much and too silly in moments. Thanks for your videos!
The messages were all too clear for me:
1. Buckle up because THIS IS
GOING TO HAPPEN SOON.
2. War is a horrible thing.
Period.
I'm working in both states and believe me, Texas & California are aligned in many ways as far as disenchanted Dems in Cali and Texans who are sick to death of all the identity politics. The battle lines are being drawn and that 'Western Front' depicted in the film will have many more states involved with Texas & California 😉
The overarching statement of the movie "Civil War" seems to be, 'FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT'. In the third act, the scene with the white horse being taken and the non-sensationalized killing of the unnamed president played by Nick Offerman sends a clear message: if you attempt to subvert the will of the people, you will be killed without remorse.
Why, you ask? I believe this message is directed towards anyone contemplating becoming President of the United States and then attempting to seize power as its first dictator or king by force. "Civil War" may serve as a cautionary tale, especially aimed at a certain narcissist who craves constant attention and control. The message is blunt: if you try, you will face dire consequences.
As depicted in the movie, the president's demise was lonely; abandoned by those around him, they admitted to themselves that he wasn't worth dying for.
Acts 1 and 2 take the audience on a ride, both literally and figuratively, through the lives of a couple of photojournalists. The initial focus on their perspective seems like a smokescreen designed to engage and captivate viewers. It's a sleight of hand to keep us watching, searching for deeper meaning. This smokescreen presents a story about individuals obsessed with capturing moments that define history-a fame sought after by everyone from Hollywood paparazzi to hardened war journalists.
For instance, recall a recent video featuring a photographer with a GoPro strapped to his chest, calmly capturing the chaotic scene after former President Donald Trump was shot on stage. He moves effortlessly, seemingly oblivious to the danger, fixated only on 'taking the picture', over and over. His dedication to his craft is unwavering; he'd risk anything for that perfect shot. This kind of single-minded pursuit is familiar to the movie's writer, who likely draws from personal experiences with such driven individuals.
A direct portrayal of a people's army executing a would-be dictator or king wouldn't fare well in today's political climate. Instead, "Civil War" embeds this message within a complex narrative, leaving viewers to unravel the events, motivations, and consequences. The revelation, hidden behind the smoke and mirrors, is the movie's final picture: the president dead on the floor, abandoned by allies, while a couple fighters from the people's army stands over his lifeless body.
If you are left baffled thinking what the hell could unite California and Texas, as portrayed as allies in the movie. These politically divergent states band together against a common threat, demonstrating faith that Americans, regardless of their differences, would unite to defend the Constitution and the nation.
Truth be told, I haven't seen "Civil War" yet; my insights are based on a few TH-cam videos like this one. Do you think my interpretation holds water?
So, Civil War's problem is that I could ABSOLUTELY tell it was written by someone who understands that there are fault lines in US Society and differences in US culture but doesn't actually know what those things are or mean. It is a vague post. It ultimately comes off as it's just saying "whoa... War maaaaan... It sucks maaaaan."
It comes off as trauma porn, at times.
it's sad to see Garland's output become so low quality in his past two films. Maybe he's right to quit directing and go back to writing. I don't think he realizes that sci-fi is his wheelhouse because he should stick to that and only that.
Low quality? This film is a masterpiece on soo many levels, from the cinematography, sound design, the performances
The action scenes are brutal and hard hitting, the slow boiling tension scenes have you on a knife edge.
Even if you dislike the premise or the type of story being told its very well put together
@@OldhandlewasabitcringeI'll have to see that for myself. I just had no excitement for this movie since it was announced and his last movie Men was frustratingly stupid.
@@Lifesizemortal Yea I would say to go into this with no expectations and you will hopefully be pleasantly surprised.
Yea I was not a fan of men or annihilation, but this is a big step up imo
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe Ok I saw Civil War. It sucked. Everything Marianna said applies.
I feel like if there was mini series before the civil war I feel like folks would appreciate it.
My friend actually said the same thing, she said she wishes this was a mini-series instead of a movie
What are you talking bout.....? Strongly disagree 😅
The only reason for war should be to protect life, and civil rights and liberties. When it doesn’t matter to a government, or to any organization, that people have rights and liberties, soon peoples lives will not matter to that government or organization, if it was ever even a concern in the first place.
I feel like keeping it neutral allows the viewers to discuss and imagine what led to the cross sectional moment he wanted to capture. Lacking a statement forces the viewer to wonder what led to that situation and forces them to consider the infinite scenarios.
Immediate gratification requires zero thought and no work.
Brilliant review as always Mariana. Loved it. This is a film that I’m definitely interested in checking out. I’ve heard great things so far.👍
Passive Neutrality is taking a side.👎🏿
Fantastic review! My sister and I were trying to articulate why this film just left us underwhelmed, and you summed up all of the issues we had with this film. I wanted to like more than the film's visuals and sound design, but I did not. Like you, I did not need this film to take sides, but Garland did need to explain why certain states teamed up and why other states were unaware that a civil war was even happening. He wanted to say something but chickened out of the worldbuilding because he would have had to get political. At the end, this film just felt safe and hollow, like so much that comes out of modern Hollywood these days.
I said the same thing in my Letterboxd. I really liked this movie and it looks amazing. But not have a clear view on the war or the director’s message makes the viewer disconnected from the film. They could have made this into the deep future or place the war in another country
"This country is so divided we need something to bring us together" also "This movie didn't do enough to divide us more" Critics want to critic.
"This movie didn't do enough to divide us more" - just to be clear, at no point is this even remotely something I said or implied in my review.
This movie is about critical distance and the apparatus of capture.
But Maybe right now, ‘War is bad’ is a big enough thing all by itself that we all should stop and think about
The reasons are only relevant to the audience right now before the fecal matter hits the fan. Once it hits the fan--the original reasons no longer matter. That's the point of the movie and one that I think is missed by audiences who haven't seen war and are used to having backstory and lore. A lot of the people, on both sides, agitating for civil war and tearing down the system don't understand this. They think a war would usher in their idea of a better world. What they don't understand is they are going to end up as one of two things: a corpse or they'll survive and become a monster.
As a veteran turned writer I thought Civil War was actually very rich and complex thematically and in terms of writing.
I could’ve rewritten this story about a nomadic ex soldier who aids some rebels and third party foreigners and journalists. Who must endure foreign invading soldiers, occupiers, republic soldiers, collaborators, bandits, militias, corpos, and some traitors. As well as seeing his ex wife who hasn’t been seen since their child’s death. And that this nomad wanted to take a journey that not only will change his perspective and inner humanity but also would change the outcome of the invading war, the question would be. Would he succeed trying to guide the defenseless civilians, patriotic militiamen, and foreign journalists? Or would he not succeed reaching that journey?
Also my rewrite could be made the president just Ron Swanson. Only enjoying his libertarian lifestyle of his during wartime. Even after a corporate war ravaged the country a year or two before. But this war is much more devastating as its foreign invasion as well as some civil war due to militias on the rise. And the states who had major grudge on the republic for decades since the collapse, creating their own factional military. And not sending their tax money to the capital. Even the foreign invasion was caused by a grudge of nations this country invaded in the 1990s and of course by extension, parts of South America in 2003 to 2010. And this foreign invasion was sparked by the South American federation. A more falangism approach of governance due to the world’s war that occurred before. A war that caused more wars. For this country’s case, the corporate war weakened the country. The main country’s PMC Militech was recently nationalized and needed time to develop. But then the July 4th celebration caused an emp attack and let the invaders come in, also loans weren’t paid to the corporation that bailed the country years before.
I don't mind the neutrality in terms of politics. I just wanted a little more info in terms of what led to the split. We got some info- prez served a 3rd term, attacked citizens, etc but it's treated like background, unimportant info.
agreed!
I have yet to hear a single person in the real world discuss any interest in or knowledge of this film. I have never heard anyone in the real world comment on the fear of or threat of an actual civil war or anything close to it.
My world includes people from all walks, political persuasions, economic conditions etc. Many of whom have very strong opinions on political matters and candidates from both sides and they do not hesitate to share or argue when the time is right.
The social media reactions to this film are incredibly overblown(understandably so because nothing like the prospect of Civil War to boost views, likes, shares, and subscriptions). I found the film to be only mildly interesting and not in the least bit thought provoking. Thats just me however and I certainly accept and respect the opinions of those who feel otherwise.
Loved the review. One thing that bothered me was that acceptance of the press for whoever they choose to register. There's no neutrality. Of course they would always be questioned, what side are you at? But I think that wasn't show before to emphasize the real moment of the truth that is the encounter with the ruthless soldier. That, I can believe.
It's hard to craft a good war movie without political context, esp. if, as von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Garland could've written an alternate universe scenario with causal factors quite different from our timeline, resulting in the same tragedies shown, with even more resonance re whether objectivity of the press is moral or even possible in that situation. Years ago I wrote a screenplay, "The First Casualty," about an American reporter covering the Spanish Civil War in 1936 (as ideological a conflict as it gets) and learned that threading the needle of neutrality runs the risk of looking disingenuous.
I’m a war reporter and this movie was absurd and offensive.
I honestly think if Garland did a civil war film on literally anywhere else other than America it would be so much better. The factions, the war itself, and the numerous issues with its unwillingness to say anything beyond "War bad" really detracts from the film.
Honestly, if I was to make him do anything, I would have him do a film on the Russian Civil war. That was a truly polarizing Civil War where both Far Right and Far Left groups committed massive atrocities against eachother and were pulled to brim of extremism and dehumanization.
Setting it in America, now of all times, and trying to be cautious about how you do the film, really limited Garlands potential
I think this is a very valid point. Having this unfold in America is very on the nose and you can’t avoid how politically charged the whole idea is. Then again, civil war as a concept is always going to be political, but it would have been good to see a different setting for sure
@@ImpressionBlend That’s the ultimate foot shooter here, doing an apolitical civil war is like doing an apolitical election year, it makes ZERO sense.
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon Marianna. I am looking forward to it. But the best reviews seem to be saying something similar to yours. It would be interesting if there is a longer cut. A couple weeks Alex Garland said he does doesn't want to direct movies anymore. I wonder... He also said that he was influenced by Come and See. High bar indeed.
Later: Saw it. I largely agree with Marianna. I enjoyed it. But like you I felt it was harmed by a lack of context. There were many cues that read various aspects of the current political landscape. Also I think we are told that the president is fascistic, but the why is very important here. And not discussed. Nevertheless an interesting film. But flawed.
I am completely shocked and terrified that the ""point" of this film isn't landing with American audiences. The tenor of this video and general discourse around this movie, the ultra evasive critiques and avoidance to engage.. I'm sorry.. his point is resoundingly clear, and evidenced by the exact reception you're a part of.
We will not change course until it's here.
We will not even fucking try. We won't acknowledge an alternative.
We will nitpick reality and each other instead of fucking waking up to our situation and what it demands of us as a citizenry.
Deepest American horror i've ever come across. I frankly pray for the USA.
War bad omg
Do you need a tissue?
Civil War is definitely the most underrated movie of the year. It’s easily my favorite next to Dune part 2
Maybe it’s because I’m already so entrenched in American political discourse online, but i thought it was pretty easy to fill in the gaps of the story. Having everything spelled out would’ve ruined the film for me personally
It’s silence speaks volumes. In the future this will be a cult classic.
He can say whatever nonsense he wants, but there's no excuse to have Texas aligned with California instead of Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee, and other southern states. It wouldn't ever happen, even if all of them oppose a tyrannical federal government, no southern state would ever align with California, because they simply don't need to, and the common policies are too radically different. Quick example; California vs southern states' abortion laws. One side sees it as women's health care, the other sees it as straight-up murder. There is no reality where Texas would ever align with California instead of it's neighboring red states.
I feel like even TH-cam critics are hampered by what they really think of the movie, because the meta conversation it is presenting is so controversial. Almost everybody knows what this movie is really saying. If not, watch the real news for once.
Even though your background is blurred, I would recognize the Expanse series of books anywhere.
I think there is context that is built-in to a certain degree. It’s the current political climate, which is actually not really political. It’s moral. Hate and fear versus love and intelligence. Science is not political.
Loved your review.
Does the movie address the disconnect between more cosmopolitan big city people and blue collar folk from small town America?
@@llamasarus1 Sort of. In the sense that it's implied that a lot of people in 'small town America' are able to largely ignore the conflict. But also, I think it's extremely misguided to view that disconnect as something that's actually real, and not mostly manufactured by politicians. The overwhelming majority of people who live in big cities are not "cosmopolitan." They're just people. Often facing the same issues folks in rural communities do -- lack of healthcare, financial insecurity, crumbling infrastructure, etc.
Explain? Which side is love and intelligence?
I truly don't think that the movie being politically neutral means it wants the audience to leave the politics behind. I'm sure Garland knew people would talk politically about it and I'm thinking that was the goal.
Imo the movie was great and a bit tough to watch sometimes.
No civil war will or would happen like this - at least for the next decade. Civil wars aren't this chaotic and organized and no 'breakaway' nations would retain their borders like how the nations in Civil War keep the borders they had when they were once states.
Its not a question of war is bad, war is a necessity at times. War in the most advanced nation in the world hits home - war in 3rd world is a long way away from reality of most in west. I like the approach in the film - we pick sides and go with it
"what kind of american are you" is thematically important. because when we start dividing Americans into different categories. it drive polarization.I think it is saying that letting things get to the point they were at in the movie is absurd. I also think the discourse around this movie is weird. I thought everything came across pretty clearly, and it seemed pretty intentional that the movie wants us to project our own political ideology onto the situation, and then walk away reexamining that, or in other words "hey idiots. do better or look what happens" and while thats not a new concept, the way the movie said this was neat. the setting was viscerally familiar to americans, but the lack of the history and the photojournalist POV contrasted that familiarity with a feeling of being dropped in a foreign war zone, where there is usually only a basic understanding of the day to day politics or the complexities of what is causing the war. so it is also saying "it can happen here" not only with the narrative but with the entire way the movie was presented. and that is something society should always be reminded of
How Americans and people around the world react and understand the movie say a lot the point of us see do not see that coming
Finally, a good review, although I mostly disagree. I do think Anti-war films need more credit for what they do. The reality is that most war films are pro-war films, and It takes some risky decisions to make a film that makes the audience uncomfortable and refuses to pull its punches for the sake of a conclusive ending or satisfying pay offs. War is bad, civil war in America would be bad. Simple message, not that easy to get across to a lot of people.
The film is impressive. I am struggling to understand why reviewers are reviewing the film they wanted to get instead of the film they got. The film is about many things. However, the film is not a fictionalised narrative about how the US will find itself in a second civil conflict. The US setting is just window dressing; instead, it explores what modern civil wars look like where areas of the affected countries are running as before, but others are heavily affected. In some places, you have law and order. In other parts, people interpret the war differently and hence fight it in different ways, even committing war crimes; in other areas, you have total chaos and lawlessness. The film captures that sense of anarchy and dread perfectly. As far as the California and Texas thing, people who dismiss it are only thinking about a two-sided civil war; today, a country under civil war will have several factions jocking for power. In the movie, you have several sides; it is not inconceivable that the president was so awful that two factions join up and take him out to later have a go at each other (in fact, it is a potential scenario referenced in the film). It could also be the case that early on in the war, one state beat the other and installed a leadership that aligned with the idea of taking out the president. Surely, we don't need to be spoonfed exposition about what went before. We all have enough cultural capital to understand what civil wars were and what they are today. The film we got is incredible, so let's not review the film we didn't get.
I really enjoyed this movie. I was even saying to my friends that The Western Forces being made up of California and Texas may seem nonsensical at first, but they should think about it a little more. If the government that took over the USA was so tyrannical that it caused two politically different states to join forces against the greater evil, then yeah I could plausibly see it happening in that context. It reminded me of how the USA and Soviet Union were technically allied because they wanted to defeat Nazi Germany. But as soon as Germany was defeated, the two powers focused back on each other.
Excellent point.
This review has gotten the closest to how I feel about any movie